Early build of Windows Blue has leaked

And my argument is, why don't they just make a separate OS for those? or make it so you get only the desktop on regular PC's, and you get only metro on touchscreens without making a separate OS. Metro simply dose not belong on desktops no matter how you look at it.

 

Because it would cost them more to do so. Why make two separate OS's when you can make a hybrid of the two? Apart from the Metro UI, there is a perfectly useable desktop screen, minus the start menu, which is linked to Metro. You are either going to like this, or hate it. But nobody is forcing you to buy it.

 

To you, maybe.
All-in-one desktops with touch screens have begun popping up.
And no, they're not aimed towards PC gamers and enthusiasts like us.
Their idea is to unify the look-and-feel of the whole OS' generation so that users would be familiar with the UI regardless of which device they're using (provided the device has a Windows OS).

Supporting a separate OS within the same generation is a hassle; they already have Windows RT for that.

 

No one is forcing me to buy it, no. But MS will slowly start cutting support for 7, first making DX11.1 or DX12 Win8 exclusive, then they stop releasing major updates and so on. And what if Windows 9 is like Windows 8, but worse? and Windows 7 is deemed completely obsolete? It has already been said that Windows Blue is going to have even more touchscreen capabilities which will be useless to me. I'll have to upgrade to a new OS that I hate eventually weather I like it or not.

 

All-in-one PC's have been around for quite a while, and have fared pretty well so far. And why don't they just use Windows RT for all the touch screen stuff?

 

Microsoft is a business after all, it exists to make money and answer to shareholders. Perhaps Windows 8 won't be as big a hit as Microsoft were hoping for, but it wont stop them trying to chip away at the market that is worth billions.

Windows Blue offers nothing much for PC desktop users, it is purely aimed at the targeted market. Will we ever see a pure OS for desktops again? Maybe.

 

I don't know, MS is pretty stubborn, they will probably keep trying again and again until they succeed in converting to a purely touchscreen based OS. Then we are screwed, unless Linux becomes a serious competitor, and steal away atleast 30 or 40% of the total market share. I've tried Linux Mint, and its a fine OS.

 

That's the problem when there in no competition. Microsoft can move in any direction they want, because no one is going to challenge them, at least in the PC market anyway. Linux is getting better all the time, even Valve have Steam up and running on it.

 

Yup, maybe when steam becomes available for Linux, a huge population of gamers will migrate to there. That is really all it would take for Linux to become my main OS, game compatibility. That would show MS!

 

Steam is available for Linux, now.

http://steamcommunity.com/linux

 

Yes, because most gamers will migrate to another OS that has a fraction of the ease of use... why?

 

Really? sweet!

 

With windows going down the crapper, why not? And Mint was not that hard to use, even for a retard like me.

 

Well, for once, most gamers would been forced to actually learn a sht about what goes under the hood of an OS That would cut un-informed posts around here in half.

 

How the heck is Windows going down the crapper?

Because a few people kick and scream about a slight interface change (you can still bring up the old one) that was desperately overdue. The interface was largely unchanged for 17 frikkin years, hell yes it was due for a change.

Now some people don't like change, fine; the rest of us will enjoy it. But that in no ways means that Windows is having problems.

The biggest challenge facing Microsoft is how to enter the mobile arena, so far all their attempts failed. That is the big danger to them, not some 15 year old "gamer" running off to Linux.

 

And what exactly was wrong with the old design? So things should change for the sake of change, even if it makes no sense? Fine. IMO change should be made if it benefits EVERYONE, not just one portion of a market, and pisses off the other massive portion. Not a change I had in mind. Now if MS made Windows more versatile, more fluid, and just all around more comfortable, and easier, not exactly sure how, but if they did, that would have been a smarter move. Not making there flagship OS a disjointed mess.

 

His meme is whatever he doesn't personally like is 'going down the crapper'. I'd feel more confident in his prognosticating if he was aware of something as widely reported as Steam being ported to Linux.

 

lol, even Valve hates Windows 8. And I was aware of them porting Steam to Linux for months. Just wasn't aware that it was available right now.

 

Personally I've used them all, excepting Windows ME, a lot. Compared to Win 7 for example, XP is clunky and limited. No change is going to benefit everyone. Everyone does not have the same preference. What an unrealistic expectation. Would you make the same claim about a car? By Jove, I've GOT IT! Lets build a car that 'benefits' every one! It will weigh 2.3lbs, will fold up into a briefcase and get eleventy million miles to the gallon and cost 1 cent.

 

And the market disagrees with you, period.

Yes, Windows 8 is not selling as well as Windows 7. But Windows 7 did not have smartphones and tablets as competition to the likes of which Windows 8 faces today. That, and a lot of people are hanging unto their Win7 systems and just buying tablets, etc, if they want a new system.

Which is why Microsoft must succeed in penetrating that market. One of their greatest hopes relies on the new Atom chip to penetrate tablets. If they can't penetrate that market, then you can bring out the panic signs.